[Foundation-l] Chapters

[Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com]

I have realized that WMF seems to seriously misunderstand the role of chapters. I say this as someone who has always had a somewhat conservative view of chapters to begin with.  But underneath the current rift is a serious disconnect between WMF professionals and how this whole program actually works.  When I say "program", I mean the actual program work of Wikimedia which is scrolling through hundreds of recent changes in more languages than I could pin on a map. My problem isn't merely that *way* WMF professionals are approaching the Chapters is less than optimal. My problem right now is that reason they are approaching the chapters at all seems greatly lacking in clue.

Decentralization isn't some random choice that somehow was attached to this movement; it is the only way the program functions at all. WMF professionals can't begin to account for the program work being accomplished by the movement.  Has there been a recent push to catalog local train stations on the Albanian Wikipedia or is the current trend of work translating articles from a larger Wikipedia? No one knows what is actually going on in all wikis. Only that something goes on. But why does it go on? Because all these people, who could never dream of all being able to speak to one another any more than they could stand to live in one another's cultures, all get a chance to comfortably make their mark on something that seems to matter. And they feel rightfully that this makes them a stakeholder in something that matters and perhaps also feel a little more securely about how much they themselves matter.  Recent changes doesn't move because of "the Wikipedia brand", nor because of how "professional" WMF is run, nor because someone that has no understanding of how the program work of Wikimedia is accomplished feels that a description of WMF operations fails his gut check. Recent changes moves because individuals feel empowered by Wikimedia websites.  Recent changes moves entirely based of human feelings of worth and power and changing those feelings can make it move faster or slower. And there is one overarching reason people click on the banners to donate $, and that is because they believe donating will keep website live and recent changes moving.  Everything WMF does, should be checked against how it either helps or hinders that. And it impossible to both centralize and empower disparate people at the same time.

Luckily most of people chugging along in RC don't really even understand what WMF is. And that was especially lucky a few years back. Sue has made WMF a GREAT deal less embarrassing than it once was.  But in some ways the professionals at WMF are so very far out of touch with how the Wikimedia program works that I don't even know how to begin encouraging them to reconsider.  Here is a try though. There is a blog called "Good Intentions are Not Enough" [1] written a woman that has done a lot of on-the-ground program work for aid organizations.  She talks about the keys to good aid and how the surest way to deliver "bad aid" is to design aid programs around what the donors want.  Donors want to build a new school, not fund teacher salaries.  They want to build orphanages and they volunteer at them for their vacation, not subsidize poor families who are considering putting their children in an orphanage because they cannot feed them.  But good aid is unglamorous and for the most part uninspiring to donors.  Good aid makes the targeted recipients feel they are stakeholders in the program rather than charity cases.  Good aid is about empowering people much more than funding them. It is not about mapping out and planning an initiative that is easily understood and embraced by donors, it is about supporting those that are already doing things to make their slice of the world better to expand their efforts. Are chapters really these people who are already doing things to their slice of the world better? Not exactly. But they are at least planted in many different slices of the world, which makes them a giant step closer to such people than WMF, and what is more they at least have a decent shot at communicating with such people without disempowering them. I particularly think the post on this blog "Hamburgers for Hindus" does a good job drawing a distinction between "donor-led" programs and "owner-led" programs in a very quick read.[2] 

I hope WMF can learn embrace its roots as an "owner-led" organization and not forget what the real program work really is. 

BirgitteSB

[1] http://goodintents.org/
[2] http://goodintents.org/aid-recipient-concerns/hamburgers-for-hindus-2